Jack’s Blog

On 4/30/08, I posted the following blog.  Five years later, my feelings remain unchanged.  Coaches get fired every year and as salaries soar (due to a minority of coaches who excel at their craft), pressure is ratcheted up even greater.  One fact remains.  Whatever number of teams a league has in it, somebody is going to finish last.  Writers and sportscasters aren’t held to such a standard.  See what you think.     

At the beginning of each season, there are preseason polls, usually the work of sportswriters, sportscasters and other various and sundry pundits.  At the conclusion of the year, many of these prognosticators who put together these polls in the first place are talking about how many of the teams picked to win or finish at the top of their conference/division had disappointing seasons.

Fans, boosters and owners often buy into this concept - and they lose confidence in the coaching staff, increasing pressure (which, believe me, there is plenty already) or patience (and make a change - possibly just at the time the team was poised to have that breakthrough year - see Mike Krzyzewski at Duke after their 11-17 record in the ‘82-’83 season).  Coaches have been chastised on numerous occasions for “bad-mouthing” their team’s chances during the preseason, the critics claiming the coaches don’t want the pressure.  While this is possibly true, the coach also may know something (being much closer to his team than those doing the ranking) that will prevent them from living up to such a lofty selection.  Also, the reason could be that no one wants to have to live “up” to expectations; that they’d rather “surprise” people, have great seasons and, receive (sometimes planned, often not, but always welcome) the praise for an “over-achieving” campaign.  Many times these types of seasons lead to raises, contract extensions and, on occasion, a new gig (see Keno Davis from Drake going to Providence for somewhere in the neighborhood of seven figures and long-term security - whatever that is in the coaching profession - after the Bulldogs went from being picked at the bottom of their conference to becoming media darlings and NCAA Tournament Cinderellas). Note: since then, Davis has lost his job at Providence.  Replace his name and Drake and Providence with Andy Enfield and Florida Gulf Coast and USC.  Obviously, the current system is purely speculative (although fans love them, hence resulting in selling more papers and magazines) and on some occasions, they might be right on target.  Of course, the possibility exists that these pollsters have limited knowledge of “what they speak” (or rate) and put untrue, excessive or unfair expectations on the teams.  And the coach.  Keep in mind that for every Keno Davis, there’s a guy who was picked high and finished low (possibly costing him the loss of his job) - all because a group who may not have done any (or, at most, limited) research into the project or, as is known to happen, may have given it to a gofer to select.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to make everyone’s poll public information and, when a guy makes drastically wrong selections (maybe two or three years in a row), he loses his job (maybe as just a prognosticator - or maybe as a “whatever he actually does for a living”)?  It would make watching the final polls so much more interesting.  Can you imagine a player or coach asking a pollster at the post game press conference, “Well, you picked us last in our league and we’re on top while the team you predicted to ‘win it all’ is struggling in seventh place.  Are you at all worried about your position at the paper/station?”  Wonder how that guy’s wife would react if she heard that on the local or national news and how their kids would feel at school the next day when their classmates would approach them and innocently ask, “My dad said he heard your dad is going to get fired.”  Just another item to check in the “interesting things to think about but will never happen” category.

These prognosticators should take into account the words of Benjamin Disraeli who said:

“How much easier it is to be critical than be correct.”

Writing a blog on a daily basis is, as anyone who attempts to do it (or any rational person who would take the time to give it a thought), a difficult endeavor.  While I have fun doing it, I have to admit, there are days I can’t think of something to post that would be different, or in greater depth, than the reader could find elsewhere.  Even with yesterday’s great games, including the Florida Gulf Coast storyline, I’m offering up a previous blog (3/26/08) that will have true meaning for the reader.  I seriously doubt anyone’s been following me that long and even if you have, this one might have escaped your memory.  It’s well worth the time to (re)read it.  (Also, we’ll be bringing Alex back to CSU-Monterey Bay (their spring break is over) and will be spending a few days in that area.  Ain’t retirement great?  The blog will return Friday).

In any endeavor, hard work is the key phrase when it comes to attaining success.  This seems to be true more in the field of athletics than any other business.  At least, I’ve heard more leaders of teams (coaches) speak about outworking people than I do in any other business.  I can’t say that I’ve heard a pharmacist or a teacher, when asked about the key to success, mention “outworking” the competition.

Yet, it’s the standard line viewers, readers and fans get when they tune in & are presented with the outlook for the season.  When it comes right down to it, everybody can’t be outworking everybody else.  Somebody, while putting in the time and effort, is falling short of a competitor - somewhere.  But no one will admit to it and possibly, because they don’t believe it.  “Nobody is outworking us, I guarantee you that.”  Just saying it makes people feel like they’re beating down all comers.

The best I’ve ever heard the term “hard work” put in perspective was in a speech given to one of our USC teams in the early ’90s.  George Raveling, our head coach, deeply believed in the use of outside speakers to motivate, inspire, stimulate thinking or help players reach their full potential and each year, we’d have people outside the program, some well-known figures, others of lesser fame (but often with a higher quality message), address the squad.

One of those was a former Academic All-American basketball player from Duke named Dick DeVenzio.  I had known Dick mainly because I followed him in a graduate assistant’s role at Washington State where, by the way, George was also the head mentor.  Dick, a 5′11″ guard, had a terrific career for the Blue Devils in the late ’60s.  Being a fan of the game, I’d heard of Dick but getting to know him was a truly exceptional experience.

Without a doubt, he was one of the first “out-of-the-box” thinkers I’d ever come across.  When you spoke with Dick DeVenzio, you always came away from the conversation wiser, and often shaking your head in wonderment at some of the ideas he’d bring up.  He was a true Renaissance man whose life, tragically, was cut short by cancer nearly two decades ago.

The day he spoke to our players, he’d mention a few strategic things he’d do in a game that I found fascinating and I’ve passed on to other players I’ve coached.  But the one remark he made regarding hard work was the best in its simplicity, yet logical bluntness.  It stopped our players in their tracks and greatly increased the intensity of our practices from that time on - throughout the remainder of that year and a couple more to come for the underclassmen who had the benefit of hearing his message.

He simply said, “Who’s the hardest worker on the team?“  Nearly every team has one, maybe two guys, everybody would select.  On every team I’ve ever been around it’s always been that way.  There just seem to be one or two who stick out above the rest when it comes to work ethic.  It was the same for this particular Trojan club.

Then he said to the others, “What’s keeping everybody from saying you?“  He followed that up with the clincher:

“What’s keeping YOU from saying you?”

Pretty powerful when you think about it.

The ESPN guys each were to ask NCAA basketball committee head Mike Bobinski one question.  When they got around to Greg Anthony, he asked why #5 seed UNLV was playing #12 Cal 1) when the committee didn’t have teams play each other who’d played during the regular season and 2) why the game was being played in San Jose, a virtual home game for the Golden Bears.  Coincidence?  Anthony’s a proud graduate of UNLV and was simply looking out for his home boys.  Take a listen to every other TV commentator.

Seth Greenberg, not surprisingly, empathized with any bubble team that played in a “big” conference, had a huge win but bad losses and was left out of the Dance, himself having been shut out of an at-large bid for several years - including one year in which his Virginia Tech squad beat Duke, at the time the #1 team in the country.  In a TV interview after the game he was assured by none other than Dick Vitale that you won’t have to sweat a bid this year, baby, you’ll be dancing (or something like that).  The Hokies, however, followed up that monumental win by losing to Boston College at home by 15, then again at Clemson to finish the regular season.  That year, as there usually are, there were attractive “mid” major clubs and one (or more) of them was selected over the Hokies.  Can’t say as I blame him for being snubbed as going to the NIT gets old for your fans.

If you didn’t know Jay Bilas attended Duke, you’d probably be able to figure it out when you hear him explain which teams should be in and which should be out.  Maybe he could disguise Duke but not his affection for schools from “power” conferences.  This year his beef was “In order to get selected by the committee, it’s not about who you beat; it’s about who you lose to.”  This stems from the “little” guy not playing as difficult a schedule as the big boys do.  Not non-conference but conference!  It’s almost like it’s the little guy’s fault they’re in a conference that doesn’t give them chances game after game to get “quality” wins (from others in the league).  One of these was Middle Tennessee State who went 28-5, but lost to Florida International in the semi-finals of the Sun Belt Conference (annually a one bid league).

One thing that’s for sure regarding Middle Tennessee.  Any other team from any power conference, had it switched places in the Sun Belt this season with MTSU, would have faced a tall order to accomplish what the Blue Raiders did this season.  Beyond the glossy record, their non-conference losses were at Florida, at Akron (in OT) and at Belmont (all NCAA tournament teams).  They lost in their fourth conference game of the season, at Arkansas State in OT, before stringing 17 straight league victories.  Then, the fateful setback to FIU.  True, they didn’t have some of the big-name wins a team like Virginia had.  They didn’t have the opportunity!  They also didn’t have the opportunity to lose games to the schools, including the bad ones.

It’s the same slam Gonzaga sued to receive and first, Don Monson, then, Mark Few, went out and insanely scheduled the big boys, often with no return game.  Now, teams like Gonzaga, Middle, Davidson, Butler, VCU are just like Duke, UNC and Kentucky as they get every team’s best shot, in front of packed arenas - which for other games the attendance doesn’t approach capacity.  It’s as hard, or harder, to play in front of a jammed, raucous band box of a gym holding a few thousand, than it is a 15,000 sold out arena.

There’s no way of comparing mid-majors and “middling” majors as bracketologist Joe Lunardi refers to schools who aren’t particularly good but get to play in power conferences.  In one way this year’s ESPN production was quite a turnaround for Bilas, who in 2011 absolutely lambasted the committee for awarding one of the final bids to VCU, not only on Selection Sunday, but in every show he was part of - until the Rams were still alive in the Sweet Sixteen.  Of course, that year, the Rams made a Cinderella trip to the Final Four, justifying not only their selection but legitimizing them as a program not to ever again be taken lightly.

Wally Szcerbiak, who starred at Miami (OH), ending his career as Mid-American Conference Player-of-the-Year, picked Gonzaga to the Final Four and there was joy in his voice as he’d been on the Zags’ bandwagon before it was fashionable.

Mateen Cleaves went away from that line of thought when he picked Louisville over Michigan State, admitting he wasn’t going with his heart when he made the choice.  Almost like he was apologizing to Spartan Nation for doing his job as a paid prognosticator.

It’s interesting listening to each guy explain his “side.”  This most difficult part of Jay Bilas is that he’s a former (or, for all we know, a current) lawyer.  What that means is that it’s difficult for others to speak with him because as a very close friend of mine once said:

“When two people have a discussion, it should be an exchange of information, that is, each person should learn something from the other.  With a lawyer, there has to be a winner and a loser.  And the lawyer has to win.”

March Madness has always meant upsets.  Fans love upsets - even when they blow up their brackets.  What usually happens is that the biggest upsets occur in the first or second round.  However, the past few years have seen “mid-majors” play in the Final Four!  This year we may not be so startled - for a different reason.

This season, unlike all the others, most people who follow the sport closely, feel the national champion may be one of as many as 15-20 teams.  In the past, parity be damned, the team cutting down the nets was almost always a top ten preseason squad.  The tournament was exciting, with upsets and near upsets, but the eventual champion always came from a so-called “power” conference, i.e. a school with basketball tradition.  Until 2010.  Almost.

Butler made a magical run and, all of a sudden, the nation was watching them play for all the marbles - against the standard bearer for the power schools - Duke.  Naturally, the game was held in the the Bulldogs hometown.  No one was sure what the actual split was as far as percentage of fans who were rooting for David vs. those who were pulling for the big fella but the game was scripted exactly as the tournament had been up to that point.

Everyone who said that, ‘Sure there are upsets along the way” (like, every year) “but one of the big money, perennial basketball studs with great bloodlines  always prevails in the end,” had to hold their collective breaths - as the Bulldogs’ Gordon Hayward took the final shot - a heave from deeeeeep.  If someone happened to be watching their first college basketball game ever that night, by the time Hayward let that shot go, they understood the significance of whether that that ball went through the hoop or not.  So, while the ball was in flight, it really seemed like time stood still - with everyone (im)patiently waiting for the outcome.  To make it even more suspenseful, the ball banked off the backboard and hit the rim - but, alas, missed - narrowly avoiding what would have rewritten the history books on college basketball and Final Fours.

This year we may not be afforded a major surprise because so many teams have a legitimate opportunity to call themselves #1.

But I think I’ll watch it anyway.

Young coaches usually make the mistake of trying to coach each aspect of the game as passionately as the next, spending equal amounts of time on offense (man, zone, special), defense (man, zone, press, combination), special situations (OBs under and side, free throws, end of clock, end of game)  It’s an enviable strategy but, as coaches figure out all too soon, impossible to execute - the one exception being the coach has significantly better talent than all of his competitors.

Last night, Ohio State was outplaying Duke in Cameron Indoor Stadium in the first half - to the point the Blue Devils went ten minutes without a bucket.  Ten minutes!  Finally they got a put back basket off of another missed shot.  At that time, Duke was . . . down five.  Imagine going ten minutes without a basket and still being in the game, much less only down five points.  That’s why Coach K emphasizes defense and making more free throws than their opponents take. What kept the Blue Devils in the game was the fact they could still put points on the board even though they were ice cold.  Plus, of course, their defense.

Duke wound up winning the game and much of the reason is they it lit up from the three-point line.  The message to young coaches is if your staples stay strong, the rest of your game may just come around and you’ll always have a shot at winning.

Many people would say that Mike Krzyzewski became a head coach too early in his career.  When you rise to the “boss” level in your mid-20s, there’s bound to be a learning curve.  His Army teams mirrored his personality.  They were cadets - just like he was when he played for his mentor Bob Knight.

When he took the Duke job, it’s well-documented he was saved early on by his AD, Tom Butters, who shut out the complainers, independent of where they stood on the (booster) food chain.  Butters knew he had the right man and, unlike so many ADs, stood up to the pressure.  The Devils started winning and the rest . . .

Mike Krzyzewski’s greatest skill might be how he deals with people.  He’s gone from cadet to head coach to speaker to author to Olympic gold medal winner.  The greatest inspirational speaker of all time (in my opinion), Zig Ziglar, passed away yesterday at 86.  His signature line personifies Mike Krzyzewski:

“You can get whatever you want out of life if you’ll just help enough other people get what they want.”

Sure, the NBA has a great rivalry in the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers but that only occurs when they meet in the NBA Finals.  OK, a regular season game between the two is exciting but everyone knows it’s nothing more than a preliminary to the real games, i.e. if they play in the finals.

If other good teams play each other, there is a modicum of interest, e.g. Miami vs. any of the top clubs but that’s due more to the players than the teams.  Well, the NBA has a true rivalry now and it doesn’t matter who’s playing for which squad.  The New York Knicks and the Brooklyn Nets.  For those people who aren’t from that area, New York City is composed of five boroughs: Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island.  Ask residents of each and they’ll tell you they’re from New York (as in New York City).  All except the guys from Brooklyn.  They’ll say they’re from Brooklyn.  Kenny “The Jet” Smith (a native of Queens) acknowledged as much last night on TNT’s studio show.

Another former Tarheel point guard, Raymond Felton said he felt the Knicks-Nets rivalry could become like UNC-Duke.  He said the Nets talk “a lot of blather.”  This type of comment is not heard from anybody about any other team until the playoffs - and when it’s said then, it just seems to be a rallying cry to somehow squeeze out a victory.  The Nets and the Knicks make it personal because living in NYC (Brooklyn or elsewhere) hardens guys.  Or crushes them.

There are other states in which there are multiple teams but while Houston, San Antonio and Dallas all have winning franchises, Texas will always be a football state.  Florida has a clubs in Orlando and Miami, both with very good teams for years (save last year’s debacle in DisneyWorld), but Florida is a place you visit.  Although people are now from Florida, their parents (definitely grandparents) are from somewhere else.  That’s a similar situation to California, the only state that is home for four pro basketball franchises (only because Kevin Johnson governs with the same never-say-die attitude that he played with).  The Kings, and for that matter, the Warriors, haven’t been good enough to warrant a rivalry with anyone.  Those guys are struggling for survival, hoping to snatch a playoff spot (and exit after round one).

LA has two very good teams but the overall atmosphere is too laid back.  Besides, the Lakers have been king for so long and Clips have been bad for so long that the Clippers resurgence is just now being recognized.  As a matter of fact, the Lakers had better recognize it real quick or they’ll lose the tie breaker (which may or may not be significant) since they already dropped one to the Clips earlier in the season.  Right there is the difference between NY and LA.  In New York, if one team beat the other, fans of both would know it.

In New York, things are different.  People from New York are . . . from New York.  Their parents and grandparents too.  Maybe their great- or great-great-grandparents weren’t from New York.  If not, they were from Europe.  NY fans show before the tipoff, not LA style, are loud knowledgeable, intense, sarcastic and obnoxious.  Basketball is not just a game - it’s something that’s taken much more seriously.  It’s one of the items discussed at every bar, restaurant, barber shop (not hair styling salon) and dinner tables.  Depending on the time of year, maybe the only one.

What about college ball, you ask?  That is supposed to be a religion in New York.  It is.  So is high school.  The basketball is what’s worshiped.

Someone very close to me said there would only be one other NBA rivalry fans would love to see as much as the Knicks and the Nets:

“It would be the Washington Wizards  . . . but only if the Harlem Globetrotters had a franchise.”  

There are college programs in certain sports that are considered rebuilding jobs - constant rebuilding jobs.  It’s not that these colleges are simply losers; in other sports, they might even dominate.  Coaches (either assistants, head coaches at lesser levels who want to move up, or those who’ve lost their jobs) can tell you the teams in rebuilding modes.  They’re were they are trying to get hired.  Some schools are fine institutions but have close to zero tradition in a certain sport - or maybe a couple sports).  Just a few examples would be: in basketball - Arizona State, Penn State, Rice, Toledo; in football - Kentucky, Duke, Minnesota, New Mexico after watching them play today, I decided to examine the New Mexico Lobos.

The Fresno State-New Mexico game was a perfect example of a derailing of a rebuilding project - because it began so great for the underdog.  The Bulldogs are, themselves, playing under first year coach Tim DeRuyter and are experiencing a rebirth from last season.  Former coach Pat Hill, except for last season, had a successful run after he replaced legendary coach Jim Sweeney whose program had slipped during his last couple seasons.

The down years in Fresno would look like championship performances if exchanged for many of the seasons in Albuquerque.  Although coach Rocky Long took the Lobos to five bowls in seven years, going to a bowl game only puts your club in the top 55-60% of all the FBS schools (is that what the big guys are still called?)  Also consider this is a program who, in 2010 lost to Oregon 72-0.  Tradition is in short order at UNM, especially when compared with the Lobos’ basketball history.

They now have Bob Davie, former coach at Notre Dame, heading up the program and his guys have been competing - to the tune of a 3-3 record - which had their fans about ready to carve Davie’s bust into the Sandia Mountains.  With Davie attempting to build a (semi-)winner at UNM, due to its horrific tradition, they need every break - and certainly can’t miss golden opportunities when they present themselves.

Well, yesterday started off great and the Lobos jumped out to a 21-0 lead - in the first quarter!  This was no fluke; the Lobos were in command of the game.  But football is a long game and they still needed to, as football coaches love to say, “make plays.”  What happened next was indicative of teams who are close to turning the corner, but just can’t (or, maybe, subconsciously don’t) really want to win.

In order were four plays that sealed New Mexico’s fate.  First was a sure touchdown pass the Lobos’ running back (running a wheel route) dropped.  His hands were backward (at least according to the coaches who taught me in the late 1960s), i.e. thumbs together instead of pinkies together.  Next was a receiver running a slant pattern, wide open, dropping another certain TD.  Subsequent to one of these they went for a field goal and the kicker hooked it right, which was followed by a Fresno State touchdown, the drive lasting 1:36.

The next two were as bad because they could have stemmed the tide since the momentum had swung to the Bulldogs’ side of the field.  One was a deep pattern in which the Lobo receiver had a couple steps (in announcer’s verbiage, “wide open”) on his defender but the up-until-then accurate QB overthrew his man by at least three yards.  The last play was the absolute clincher.  It happens to teams like this year’s New Mexico squad and just takes the wind out of their sails.  It’s almost like, “We surrender.  You were gift wrapping that one for us and we’re going to refuse it.”

Apparently, the Fresno State receiver ran a “go” route when the Bulldogs’ QB thought he was going to stop.  Consequently, the corner linebacker for UNM was standing directly in the path of the ball.  Ahead of the corner was nothing but green.  His eyes must have gotten so big, they got in the way of his hands as he tried to catch the on-the-money-but-to-the-wrong-guy-throw.  It hit him in the stomach before he dropped it.

To New Mexico’s credit, it took four plays to bring them down.  Some teams fold after just one or two.  That bodes well for Davie and his troops.  A football renaissance may take place in Albuquerque after all.  It’s not an impossible place to win (see San Jose State).  Lobos hoops always fields a formidable squad.  It’s just that, after the fourth “lost” play, the floodgates opened and Fresno State, with its vast array of skilled people, scored seemingly every time they got the ball.  The determination of the ‘Dogs was too much for UNM.

Oh yeah, did I forget to mention the Lobos lost their first and second team QBs to injury?  If someone is unsure of the impact that would have, take into account that a passing game most of all depends on timing.  Exactly how much timing would you guess the third team guy gets with the first team wideouts?  Hint: the answer’s zero.

There are bound to be a heck of a lot of failures ahead for new coach Bob Davie.  He just needs to keep in mind the quote by Winston Churchill:

“Success is measured by your ability to maintain enthusiasm between failures.”

At the beginning of the past college basketball season, talking heads from all over the nation - including local guys with limited “listenership” in ultra small markets - were chanting the same message.  “Get a look at Duke’s freshman sensation, Austin Rivers, the nation’s top point guard, because he won’t be around the college scene after this year.”  They got it partially right.  Austin is no longer a Dookie.  Then again, some pundits claimed Rivers might not have been a point guard.

For example, on October 19, Matt Norlander from CBSSports.com wrote an article on the nation’s top PGs and listed Wisconsin’s Jordan Taylor number one.  His opinion was echoed by many in the media world.  Then, the games were televised and UNC was on (and on and on ) and the nation was raving about the sure fire #1 point guard in the US, Kendall Marshall.

I remember hearing an announcer make the statement (was it because it was cute or did he actually mean it - it sounded like the latter), “No point guard is the nation is Craft-ier that Ohio State’s Aaron.”  On December 12, still another site, rivals.com, had Xavier’s Tu Holloway listed as the top PG in the country.  Throughout the season, other names would be thrown out when the discussion turned to college’s best floor generals, e.g. Shabazz Napier (”Kemba Walker stole the spotlight last year”), Marquis Teague (”sure, he plays with great players but someone’s got to run the show and distribute”), Scoop Jardine (”the real reason the ‘Cuse is having such a great year”), Matthew Dellavedova (”if he played for a bigger name school than St. Mary’s there would be no question as to which point guard would lead the list”).

In the heat of conference races, a television piece was done on Iona’s Scott Machado, calling him, you guessed it, “the best point guard in college basketball.”  It seemed like every week there was a new “king of points” crowned.

Finally, the NBA draft was held and, according to every knowledgeable basketball person I’ve ever heard - to a person - the two most important positions to have for a successful team are a big guy and a point guard.  So which of the previously mentioned PGs was drafted first?  None!  Instead, Damian Lillard of Weber State which only goes to show that NBA teams draft the same way NFL clubs do.  The pre-draft camp, the NBA’s version of the NFL combine (as well as personal visits to the team’s site), mean more than watching a guy during a season (or post-season).

Now, I realize a player can be the best collegiate point guard and still not get the love from NBA scouts for a myriad of reasons, but the way “the best” is reported by the media can only be compared to the number of junior high crushes that go on in the average first week of school.  Of course, nothing matters until they strap it on anyway.  The players, not the junior high kids.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - or the team that needs what you bring to the table.”

About two-thirds of the way into the regular season, one of the many talking heads on ESPN (which one I can’t recall), made a statement that seemed, at the time, to make perfect sense.  In response to a remark about parity in college basketball, he said that while the talent might be spread out more than ever, there were only five teams that could be considered serious contenders for the national championship.  The teams were Ohio State, Pitt, Kansas, Texas and Duke.

I remember nodding my head in agreement because that quintet was so much more dominant than the remainder of the teams that made up Division I.  Each week, one of them took its place at the top of the rankings.  It was difficult to maintain the top spot, but there’s was little doubt that they were the class of college hoops.

Now, four of them have been eliminated and if upstart VCU plays today like they did in their first four upset victories, Kansas will have fallen too, meaning none of them will have even made it to the Final Four, much less win it all.  The point is that the way a national champ is crowned in college basketball, a team had better not let the game come down to the final possession because anything can happen (Pitt, Texas and Ohio State) and they’d better be ready to make adjustments if their opponent turns in their best performance of the season (Duke).

One-and-done is exciting but can be heartbreaking for teams and their fans.  For all those so staunchly opposed to the BCS plan:

“Be careful what you wish for, . . .”

As Jerry Tarkanian says so often, getting into the NCAA Tournament is a reward for a good season.  Losing in it, however, as every team but one does, almost seems like a punishment.  Although I never was part of an NCAA tourney squad as a player, I was an assistant on three different staffs that made a total of six NCAA tourney appearances (along with ten NITs - two of them Final Fours).  When your team is eliminated (yeah, in the NIT, too), you experience such an empty feeling, it’s hard for the fan, media member or any other person who’s never been in the arena as a competitor, to comprehend.

Recent cases in point: Jamie Dixon, head coach at Pitt, who’s done such a marvelous job at a football school, in a football city.  He’s raised the bar that his former boss, Ben Howland, set extremely high.  He had his club in the Top 5 all season.  Yet, he’s now being criticized as the guy who “can’t win the big one” because of another premature departure in the postseason.  He can solace in the fact that past “title holders” include Dean Smith, Jim Boeheim, Rick Pitino and Roy Williams.

Ben Howland, UCLA, was under heavy scrutiny for having a losing season last year and, while winning a first round game this year, came under fire for almost blowing a big lead to Michigan State.  This is the same guy who took over a program that was built on sticks when he got there and he shortly thereafter took the Bruins to three consecutive Final Fours.

Among yesterday’s “losers” was none other than Mike Krzyzewski whose Duke Blue Devils were, after leading by six at the half against Arizona (and the only reason they weren’t ahead by 20+ was a 25-point performance by Derrick Williams), embarrassed by the high energy Wildcats.  Now, second guessers all around the country will be analyzing (criticizing) the best coach in the college game about his decision to play freshman point guard Kyrie Irving, who missed nearly the entire regular season (and ACC Tournament).

A few of the talking heads have questioned the wisdom of Coach K with the idea that Nolan Smith took over the point guard position when Irving went down and played magnificently - earning such praise as being a potential Player-of-the-Year candidate.  While that argument appears to have merit (because they lost and Smith played possibly his worst game of the year), don’t think for one second that had Mike chosen not to play Irving after doctors had cleared him and, naturally, Duke had lost, he wouldn’t be second guessed by the very same indivduals.

Can’t you just hear it now?  “Krzyzewski has the best player in the country - the guy everybody who knows anything about basketball is saying is the #1 pick in this year’s NBA draft - and he doesn’t use him!  What could he have possibly been thinking?  A weapon like that and you keep him on the shelf.”

The question about whether to play Irving and risk disrupting the team’s marvelous chemistry was bantered about on studio shows and talk radio - with no conclusive answer.  Of course, those who, at that time, suggested it would be wrong to do so are now throwing out their shoulders patting themselves on the back - as if they knew Smith would have such a poor performance.  Their comments today would undoubtedly have much less volume had the Dookies prevailed.

On one of the post-game shows, Tom Izzo, a fellow who knows a thing or two about winning, was asked that exact question and his response, tongue-in-cheek, was right on point:

“It’s a problem I’d like to have.”